Friday, September 21, 2012

Islam survives only by maintaining a noble and sacred aura surrounding Muhammad's person and character, which Muslims do via unbridled lying and deception to hide the truths of Muhammad's life and even by terror. When the sacred aura is dismantled through true depiction of Muhammad life in movies, Islam implodes with it... And the countdown to that has started....

What Makes the Muslim Angry?

In India, innumerable films have been made on the life and times of various Hindu religious leaders, gurus and avatars. But not even a single film has been made Hindu viewers enraged and furious. But the rage of the Muslims in response to this film suggests that the film may have portrayed the life of Muhammad in a vile, despicable and evil manner, thereby raising anger amongst Muslims around the world.Muslims around the world claim that Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was the greatest man ever born on earth, and his life and deeds are holy and divine. So, if someone makes film on the life of Muhammad, they should be proud and hail the effort. They should be saying that even a non-Muslim, being inspired by the holiness of the Prophet, has come forward to make a film on the life and deeds of the Prophet. They should also be pleased, if the film truly represented the life of Muhammad, because such a film would impress the viewers and tempt them to embrace Islam, something they so crave for. But, on the contrary, the film “Innocence of Muslims”, a trailer of which is presently being shown on Youtube, depicting the Prophet’s life, has made Muslims filled in anger and rage.

Interesting enough is that Imran Firasat, a Pakistani ex-Muslim living in Spain, has undertaken the making of another movie on the life of Prophet Muhammad. He says, “It will be the first movie on Muhammad to be produced by an ex-Muslim. For that reason, I can make you believe that you will find something special in that movie. Don’t miss it. I aim to produce the movie in at least 4 to 5 languages, so that Muslims from various countries can understand that and give a serious thought to their religious belief.”

Mr. Firasat has also thrown a challenge before the entire Muslim community, saying: “I am starting work on the movie from tomorrow morning. I invite Muslims to stop me if they can. It is my challenge that my movie will be in front of the world very soon. …..I’m challenging Muslims again, I am starting work on the movie right now for exposing the cunning and self-claimed prophet of Islam. Stop me if you can. The countdown to release of the movie starts now.”

In fact, Muhammad was indeed an evil person in the garb of a prophet and Muslims are trying to hide his true and portray an imaginary Muhammad for the saving the face of Islam. How deceptive can Muslim authors be in this affair? An example may be cited here for the convenience of the readers. Tariq Ramadan, professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, believes that the life of human prophet Muhammad can teach us many lessons. In his book, In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad (2007), he depicts Muhammad as a deeply spiritual man with great respect and love for women. According to him, Muhammad was not without faults. But he was tolerant to other faiths. “And unlike his followers, he allowed Muslims to abandon their religion, and personally permitted an Abyssinian Muslim to convert to Christianity”, says Ramadan.

From the comments of the three authors, as presented above, it becomes evident that the producer of the film “Innocence of Muslims” has depicted a rather true life of Muhammad without any serious exaggeration or forgery whatsoever in order to malign the glorious Prophet. Maker of the upcoming film, Imran Firasat, has no such vile intention either. More importantly, if a film-maker presents the life of the Prophet erroneously, Muslims have the right to go to court and fight such evil attempts legally. Last year, the Dutch MP Geert Wilders (the maker of the short film FITNA), wrote an article “Time has come to Expose Muhammad”, declaring that he is going to make a film on the life and deeds of Muhammad. Dr Ali Sina, the well-known ex-Muslim scholar and the founder of Faith Freedom International, is also talking about making a film on the life of Muhammad for many years.

All these information should make Muslims happy, because these people are suddenly coming forward to propagate the divine life of Muhammad and the divine faith originated by him. Why all these attempts make Muslims scared and angry instead? The reason might be that, through these films, some people are trying to expose some unpalatable and inedible truth, which Muslims try their best to hide. They try to hide these truths because if those facts are made public, Islam, a doctrine of perverted sex and violence, will lose its face. More importantly, these films will help make the civilized people of the world aware of the barbaric atrocities and immoral deeds of Muhammad. As a result, Islam will be condemned globally. People will know that Muslims are selling a cruel killer, a devil and a lustful despot as a divine Prophet. Most of all, sullying Muhammad’s Prophetic image in such manner would bring the collapse of his creed, Islam.

In the article “The Passion of the Vampire-Prophet,” author Sujit Das, wrote: “Often a question arises in our mind, why the Muslim clerics are reluctant to make a movie on Prophet Muhammad to promote Islam?.... The answer is simple. Islam is a barbaric religion which is completely devoid of spirituality. There is only deception, hate, murder, bloodshed, rape, delusion, terrorism, crime, suicide-bombing, honor-killing etc…etc. …In spite of this, if a film is produced on Muhammad’s honest biography, it will be a horror movie – a vampire movie that is set in background of extreme lawlessness of seventh century Arabia and Prophet Muhammad being the vampire itself.”

The Wikipedia gives a list of 15 movies made on Muhammad and Islam. Out of these, 3 are based solely on the life and deeds of Muhammad. These are:

The Life of The Last Prophet (This Islamic historical movie was labeled as one of the greatest movies about Muhammad ever made.)

Muhammad: The Last Prophet (An animated historical film about the rise of the Islamic religion), and,

Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet (A documentary that explains the life of Muhammad from birth to death and his contributions to the cultures of the time.)

These films have, undoubtedly, presented a sugar-coated Muhammad by concealing his lustful, cruel and demonic deeds. Had any of these films projected the true color of Muhammad, Muslims across the world would have demonstrated violently as they are now doing over the film “Innocence of Muslims”.

Five Pillars of Islam

According to Islamic scriptures, the political ideology of sex and violence, called religion of Islamic, rests on five pillars and they are,

the shahada (Iman)

daily prayers (salat)

almsgiving (zakat)

fasting during Ramadan (sawm) and the

pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a lifetime.

The first pillar shahada contains six kalmias or oaths and they are (1) Kalimah Tayyibah, (2) Kalima Shahaadat, (3) Kalimah Tamjeed, (4) Kalimah Tawheed, (5) Kalima Astighfar and (6) Kalima Rud-e-Kuffer. Out of these six kalemas the first one or Kalimah Tayyibah is most important and it reads “La ilaha illallah, Muhammadur Rasulu'Llah” – (there is no god except Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah). Some scholars refer this kalmia as the soul of Islam. A slight disbelief in this kalema turns even a devout Muslim instantly into a kafir. So, a Muslim has to maintain a firm and unwavering belief in the second part of the kalmia that says “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”. Hence the image Muhammad is to be kept in high esteem, so that it may not raise the slightest disbelieve in his prophethood.

So, Islam may be compared to an extremely brittle fancy glassware, hanging from the ceiling with the help of fine thread, called Kalima Tayyibah. Slightest disbelieve in the prophethood of Muhammad, the thread will snap and the entire doctrine of Islam would fall on the ground and be broken into pieces. This is the reason why Muslims are ready to tolerate any adverse criticism of Allah, but not of Muhammad. Nearly a year ago, a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the U.K. issued a statement explaining the reason why they have abandoned Islam. Aired by the BBC, the said declaration also explained why they do not consider Muhammad a prophet. It reads,

“One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Quran 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way.”

The statement continues, “Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”

Why Islam would perish?

Above discussions would make the reader grasp how devastating it would be if these films uncover the real face of Islam to the civilized world. Last year, I wrote an regarding Geert Wilders’ intention of making a film on Muhammad, entitled “Geert Wilders’ Film on Muhammad may Spell the Death of Islam”. In it, I explained why damage to Muhammad’s image would bring about the death of Islam. In the present context, I repeat some of the points from that article. To begin that article, I wrote,

“The Internet has become a serious threat to the survival of Islam. Through internet, it has been easy to unmask the true face of Islam and its originator Muhammad. It has enabled critics to overcome the taboo of telling the truth about Islam and Muhammad… Islam stands on the projection of Muhammad as a perfect, sinless human being, but as his real vile character becomes exposed through the Internet, the foundation of Islam becomes increasing weak on its way to collapse. That's why Islamic countries try to block many Websites that expose the true face Islam and its founder.”

On April 2, the RNW News Desk published an article, Wilders’Mohammed : rapist killer or compassionate activist?, authored by Klaas den Tek and Myrtille van Bommel. “A barbarian, a mass murderer - that’s how Dutch MP Geert Wilders says he will portray the prophet Mohammed in a new film. Hirsi Ali sees him as depraved, the Pope as tyrannical. Others think of him as elusive or an invention, and some consider him a tolerant philosopher or a human rights activist. Six views to assess Wilders’ claims about Mohammed”, the authors say.

“The cruel leader of a band of plundering, murderous, rapist robbers from Medina” - that’s how Dutch MP Wilders says he wants to depict the prophet in his new film, due in 2012 as a sequel to his 2008 anti-Qur’an short FITNA. To support his view Wilders cites a biography of the prophet written by Flemish psychologist Herman Somers: “The sources describe orgies of savagery in which hundreds of people were strangled, their hands and feet chopped off, eyes pricked out and entire tribes exterminated.” Wilders says he wants to “unmask” Muhammad; so that the Muslims can turn their backs on Islam.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Islam is not the religion of peace. The following sixteen reasons, all sourced from the original sacred documents (the Quran and Traditions), classical law, and history, tell us why.

Each item in the list has one or more back-up articles. Readers should click on them to find out that the points come right out of original Islam and are not invented out of thin air.

Nearly all of the back-up articles also have a section on modern Islam, mentioning Muslims -- too few -- who advocate reform.

And if readers would like to see various translations of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com and type in the references. If readers are in doubt about the meaning of a verse, they may go to the tafsir (commentary) written by Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), one of the most authoritative and highly regarded classical commentators in the Sunni world, at qtafsir.com. Or the readers may search through the modern commentary by Sunni Indo-Pakistani religious scholar and politician Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi (d. 1979) at englishtafsir.com.

The first reason is the foundation of all the others.

1. The mosque and state are not separate.

To this day, Islamic nations that are deeply rooted in sharia, like Iran and SaudiArabia, do not adequately separate the two realms, giving a lot of power to courts and councils to ensure that legislation does not contradict the Quran (never mind whose interpretation).

2. Jihad may be waged against injustice or an unjust nation, as Islam defines the terms.

Classical texts say Islam is justice, and no Islam is injustice. Therefore, a "just war" can be waged against a nation or people who does not submit to Islam.

Yet we are told in the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is based on sharia, that humane rules must be followed (Article Three). Does that article offer hope that modern Islam can move past old Islam? Maybe.

However, the Quran, sacred traditions, classical law, and historical Islam contradict or balance out some elements in Article Three. Would there be a conflict between the old Islam and modern Islam if war broke out? ManyIslamicclericsissuefatwas (religious rulings) to wage jihad.

Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, vol. 9, 153-55.)

In the context of the list of Muhammad's assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad's weapons.

Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: "Pluck Out," "Very Sharp," and "Death." Two other swords from elsewhere are named: "Sharp" and "That is wont to sink" (presumably into human flesh). Finally, there is "Having the vertebrae of the back." This last sword Muhammad collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.

Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: "Most conducive to ease, or wide," "white," and "of nab wood" (species of tree from which bows are made).

Muhammad's name for a certain coat of mail implies "ampleness" or "redundant portions," probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).

Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: "The obliterator."

5. A captive in jihad may be executed, enslaved, ransomed for money, exchanged for other prisoners, or released freely.

Quran 47:4, 33:25-27, and 4:24 say these things (and the last option -- free release -- is positive). Yet we are told that in a jihad today, everything must be done humanely and justly.

However, as stated before, the back-up article, this fourth item, and the next four items in this list balance out that claim. One must ask whether there be a conflict between oldIslam and modern Islam in the event of a war.

6. A woman captive of jihad may be forced to have to sex with her captors (now owners).

Quran 4:24 and especially the sacred traditions and classical law allow this. The sacred traditions say that while out on military campaigns under Muhammad's leadership, jihadists used to practice coitus interruptus with their female captives.

Quran 59:2 and 59:5 discuss those rules. Sacred traditions and classical law expand on the Quranic verses. Modern Islamic law officially improves on the Quran: see Article Three of the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is nonetheless based on sharia but outlaws wanton destruction of property. Once again, would there be any conflict between old Islam and modern Islam in a war today?

Quran 8:1, 8:7, 8:41, and 48:20 show this clearly. Early Islam followed the old Arab custom of raiding caravans, but as its military grew, the raids were elevated to jihad. The spoils of war were coveted. Which Islam would prevail in a war today -- the old one or the modern one?

Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a "virgin-rich" garden (Quran 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).

In Quran 4:74, 9:111, and 3:140-143, the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.

10. A second-class submission tax, called the jizya, must be imposed on Jews and Christians (and other religious minorities) living in Islamic countries.

Quran 9:29 offers three options to Jews and Christians: (1) fight and die, (2) convert to Islam, or (3) keep their religion, but pay a tribute or submission tax, the jizya, while living under Islam.

In Islamic history, vanquished Jews and Christians became known as dhimmis. This word appears in Quran 9:8 and 9:10, meaning a "treaty" or "oath," but it can also mean those who are "condemned," "reviled," or "reproved" (Quran 17:18, 17:22, 68:49). The word "submission" in Quran 9:29 can also be translated as "humiliation," "utterly humbled," "contemptible," or "vile." It can mean "small" as opposed to "great."

11. Muhammad executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.

Quran 33:25-27 justifies this atrocity. After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan called Qurayzah.

The sentence: death by decapitation for around 600 men (one Islamic source says 900) and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize).

It is true that freeing slaves was done in original Islam (Quran 5:89 and 24:33), and the Quran says to be kind to slaves (Quran 4:36), but that is not the entire story.

In addition to those verses, Quran 4:24, 23:1-7, and 33:52 allow the institution. Muhammad owned slaves, even one who was black (so says a sacred tradition). He was militarily and politically powerful during his later life in Medina, but he never abolished slavery as an institution.

Officially, Islamic nations have outlawed slavery (Article 11, which is still based on sharia). That proves that Islam can reform on at least one matter. Can it reform on the other sharia laws? And we are told that "no other nation or religious group in the world treated slaves better than the Muslims did." The back-up article and next two items in this list contradict that claim.

15. Apostasy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on anyone who leaves Islam (an apostate).

Normally this is a prescribed punishment, but it is also political, since it is about freedom of religion. Surprisingly the Quran does not cover punishing apostates down here on earth, though in the afterlife they will be punished. Does this mean modern Islam can reform old Islam? Quran 4:88-89, 9:73-74, and 9:123, read in that sequence, might deal with earthly punishments. Mainly, however, the sacred traditions and classical law permit harsh treatment for anyone who leaves Islam.

16. Blasphemy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on critics of Islam or Muhammad.

These verses should be read in historical sequence, as follows, for they show that as Islam's military power increased, the harsh treatment of mockers and critics also intensified: Quran 3:186, 33:57-61, 9:61-66, 9:73, and 9:123. Sacred traditions, classical laws, and historical Islam are unambiguous about the punishments, recording the people, and often their names, who were assassinated for mocking Muhammad and the Quran.

The thinking world was laughing at Islam behind its back. Now we're laughing at it to its face.

Islamic religious leaders must reform their religion. Those sixteen points have expiration dates on them -- from back in the seventh century.

Only after reform will we have even slight peace.

In the meantime, while we wait patiently for this Islamic Reformation and Modernization (if it happens), the Western elites may want to remember three universal rights that are self-evident, according to the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The hallmarks of those three rights are, among other things, freedom of conscience to follow a religion of one's choice (or no religion at all) without being harassed. Freedom of speech -- even the kind that criticizes the Quran and Muhammad -- is a sign that democracy and justice have taken root. Equality before the law for both sexes also defines the three universal rights.

If we bend any part of those God-given rights, we will weaken our nation.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Egypt tells us everything we need to know about the horror of Obama’s Middle East policy. The latest development is that a group of several Salafist and jihadist groups — including the local affiliate of al-Qaeda — announced a demonstration outside the U.S. embassy. This was explained as a protest against some obscure film made in America by a mysterious man who is a crackpot or provocateur and who has told so many lies one starts to wonder whether this was all a set-up (by Islamists? Arab Christians?) to provoke riots and antisemitism.

But note well that everyone — except the Western media — understands that holding such a demonstration at the U.S. embassy in Cairo on September 11 means supporting the September 11 attack. The Egyptian government knew the time of the demonstration and the participants — it was all publicly announced — yet Egyptian security forces did not protect the embassy. And so the demonstrators scaled the wall, entered the compound, tore up the American flag, and put up the historic revolutionary flag of Islam (the eighth century black one, not the seventh century green one) in its stead. Why didn’t Egyptian security forces stop them? It was a deliberate decision no doubt taken at the highest level.

Rather than expose the phony excuse for the demonstration and condemn the Egyptian government’s behavior, the U.S. government groveled. It issued statements in English apologizing for the fact that someone had exercised his right of free speech within its country. The tweets it sent out in Arabic were even worse, pitiful pleas of the we-are-on-your-side-against-this-terrible-Islamophobia variety. And will Egypt’s failure to protect the embassy — because it is on the side of America’s enemies — have any effect on the Obama administration’s helping the Egyptian government get two German submarines (against Israel’s efforts), taking $1 billion off Egypt’s debt, and having a nice meeting with the visiting Egyptian president (while refusing to meet Israel’s prime minister, this supposedly super-pro-Israel president)? You know the answer.

This is a policy of institutionalized cowardice unprecedented in U.S. history.

Last week, the U.S. government asked its good buddy, Egyptian President al-Mursi, to inspect an Iranian ship suspected of carrying arms to Syria while it passed through the Suez Canal. Remember that to do so is arguably in Egypt’s own interest since Cairo is supporting the rebels while Tehran backs the regime. But it is also possible that the U.S. government blundered, or the move was badly timed, since international agreements dictate that Egypt is not supposed to inspect ships in the canal itself. The Egyptian government — despite three decades of massive U.S. aid, licensing to produce advanced American tanks and other equipment, strategic backing, and an invitation to Washington to meet Obama — refused to help out, since it possibly could have done it outside of the canal itself. Indeed, al-Mursi headed for Tehran to attend a “non-aligned” conference, albeit admittedly one with broad international support.

Did I mention that the al-Mursi government is about to retire 70 generals? Get it? Just as the Islamist government broke the Turkish army because Obama would not back America’s old allies, now the Egyptian Islamist government is going to break Egypt’s army. Who will replace these generals? Two types: opportunists and Islamists. [Here's a good analysis of the army situation.] And then the army will be completely transformed. And then the state Islamic institutions … and then the courts.

Meanwhile, the Western media and U.S. government will stand by and not comprehend a fundamental transformation unfolding before their eyes. Or will they comprehend it but think that it is a good thing? The first possibility is total incompetence and ideological blindness. The second possibility approaches the equivalent of criminal conduct in the destruction of U.S. interests, not to mention democracy, human rights, and the maintenance of peace.

Does this mean Egypt will ally with Iran? Only if Iran surrenders to the radical Sunni Islamism ruling every Arab state. Since Tehran will never agree, in the end Egypt will fight Iran for influence tooth and nail. The two anti-American countries will kill the others’ surrogates. But it means al-Mursi feels no friendlier toward America than he does toward Iran. And Cairo will not lift a finger to help Washington against Tehran unless by doing so the Egyptian Brotherhood advances its own cause of putting more Sunni Islamists (anti-Americans, of course) into power.

And right now that means Syria. Indeed, al-Mursi offered Iran a deal: give us Syria and we’ll help you escape isolation over the nuclear issue. Tehran will turn him down, no credit to U.S. policy. Al-Mursi is just asking too much.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important single country, has been turned from an ally of America against the Iranian threat into, at best, a neutral between Washington and Tehran that will do nothing to help America.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important single country, has been turned from an ally of America — albeit an imperfect one, of course — in maintaining and trying to extend Arab-Israeli peace into a leading advocate of expanding the conflict and even going to war potentially.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important single country, has been turned from an ally of America in fighting international terrorism into an ally of most international terrorist groups except those that occasionally target Egypt itself.

But here’s one for the 600 rabbis who front for Obama: The destruction of the Egyptian natural gas pipeline and deal, as a result of the instability and revolution that the U.S. government helped promote, has done as much economic damage as all the Arab and Islamic sabotage, boycotts, and Western sanctions or disinvestments in Israel’s history.

Egypt alone is a catastrophe, even without mentioning another dozen examples.

How much longer is the obvious fact that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood regime is anti-democratic, anti-American, and antisemitic going to be denied? But wait there’s more, lot’s more.

After meeting Egypt’s new president, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, “I was convinced that President Mursi is his own man,” adding that the new president is committed to democratic reforms and to representing all Egyptians.

Question: How does Panetta know this?

Answer: This is what Mursi told him.

Of course, by endorsing Mursi before he does anything, the U.S. government puts its seal of approval on the Muslim Brotherhood regime. Shouldn’t it have to do something to prove itself before Obama gives up all that leverage? What next? Perhaps Mursi will get the Nobel Peace Prize after a couple of months in office.

Note the phrase “his own man.” What does that mean? That Mursi won’t follow the Brotherhood’s orders. He will even stand up against it, presumably to be more moderate, right? There is no reason to believe that this is true.

Panetta added: “They agreed that they would cooperate in every way possible to ensure that extremists like al Qaeda are dealt with.” Of course, they are more likely to cooperate against al-Qaeda, a group they don’t like. But will they cooperate against Egyptian Salafist terrorists, Hamas, and lots of other terrorists? Of course not.

Indeed, at the precise moment Panetta was meeting Mursi, the new president was releasing Islamist terrorists from Egyptian prisons. These include terrorists from Islamic Jihad, which is part of the al-Qaeda coalition and one of the groups that organized the attack on the U.S. embassy! How do you square that one, Secretary Panetta?

And finally, Mursi pointed out to Panetta that his own son was born in California, when the future Egyptian president was studying there. His son, Mursi noted, could be the president of the United States one day.

I’ll let you, dear readers, pick up on that previous paragraph.

Of course, the Obama administration can claim one success in Egypt: the regime pulled its forces out of eastern Sinai in accord with the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. The problem is that it has been reported in the Egyptian media — a good source, though not confirmed — that the regime made a deal with the al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked Israel. If they promised to stop fighting (for how long?), the Egyptian government would release all of their gunmen.

Meanwhile the most important (formerly) pro-Islamist moderate intellectual in the Arabic-speaking world has defected, an event of monumental importance being ignored in the West. The Egyptian sociologist Saad ed-Din Ibrahim hated the Mubarak regime so much that he joined with the Islamists as allies and insisted that they were really moderate.

Interviewer: “You indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood are hijacking the country, not merely the top political posts. Is the Muslim Brotherhood indeed about to hijack the country?”

Ibrahim: “Well, this is how it seems to me, as well as to other observers, some of whom are more knowledgeable than me about the Brotherhood,” long-time members, who have now helped him understand the Brotherhood’s “desire to hijack everything and to control everything.” [I assume he is referring to relative moderates in the Brotherhood--and some of these individuals have also spoken publicly--who either quit the Brotherhood in disgust a few years ago or were expelled last year.]

I suggest Ibrahim and these people, not to mention the liberals packing their bags and the Christians piling up sandbags, know better than Panetta.